The Hippies Can Never Be Allowed to Win
Posted by
Kevin
Tgirsch’s post has brought some of the usual anti-climate change talking-points. I want to deal with a few of them here in the service of a larger issue: the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science. First the points.
Commentator Tman says:
No it doesn’t. If this was the case then we would not have had the period of cooling between 1940 and 1970. The point about CO2, which your article actually addressed is that the computer models haven’t been able to accurately predict the influence of CO2 in terms of global temperature. If you believe that “CO2 exacerbates those trends and causes additional warming” then why did the temperature fall between 1940 and 1970? This “incovenient truth” tends to send the CO2 models in to a tizzy.
There is a simple and well-known answer to this: sulfate aerosols. As I have linked before:
Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem).
… The cooling trend from the 40’s to the 70’s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
This is well understood and well accepted. Five minutes with Google would have proven sufficient. Heck, just reading the link in the original post would shown Tman the error of his position. His comments are filled with tidbits like that. Take this:
Then with the other planets they produce the facts about how these other planets warm and cool, but neglect to mention that the warming that is taking place whilst different in intensity and temperature for obvious reasons, has changed in correlation to our planets change in climate. So no, they didn’t address the gist of the question.
There have been claims that warming on Mars and Pluto are proof that the recent warming on Earth is caused by an increase in solar activity, and not by greenhouses gases. But we can say with certainty is that even if Mars, Pluto or any other planets have warmed in recent years, it is not due to changes in solar activity.
There are two big problems with the idea: the evidence for warming on Mars and Pluto is sketchy, while the Sun’s energy output has not increased since direct measurements began in 1978 (see Climate myth special: Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans). If increased solar output really was responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons, not just Mars and Pluto.
That is from the article linked to in the original post. But Tman just ignores it and writes something that is simply not supportable, and something he should know is not supportable.
But there is actually worse:
There is no scientific consensus in regards to how much of global warming is due to the effects from human activity
This is stunning in either its ignorance or its mendacity. The IPCC report laid out the scientific consensus pretty clearly, and it was all over the mainstream media:
“We can be very confident that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming,” co-lead author Dr Susan Soloman told delegates in Paris.
The report, produced by a team tasked with assessing the science of climate change, was intended to be the definitive summary of climatic shifts facing the world in the coming years.
The agency said that it would use stronger language to assess humanity’s influence on climatic change than it had previously done.
In 2001, it said that it was “likely” that human activities lay behind the trends observed at various parts of the planet; “likely” in IPCC terminology means between 66% and 90% probability.
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet’s surface.
That is a strong consensus, backed, in a very literal sense, by the weight of the scientific establishment. It is inconceivable that anyone who took this matter seriously would not know about this and not understand its meaning.
I have written about this before. Much of anti-global warming consists of discredited theories or outright and blatant lies. And yet these things are defended as if they were somehow worthy of anything but contempt.
And it is not just climate change that gets this treatment. It is something of a religious belief among a section of right-wingers that Rachel Carlson is mass-murderer because she got DDT banned and now hundreds of thousands of people are needlessly dying of malaria. Glenn Reynolds, for example, has made that notion something of a personal hobby horse for years now. The problem is that it is all nonsense:
The answer is that many lives have been saved because of Rachel Carson and it’s scandalous the way Reynolds and Karlgard mislead their readers.
Because of Carson, the agricultural use of DDT was banned, but not the anti-malarial use of DDT and it has continued to be used to this day. You can buy it from Yorkool Chemical:
… And banning the agricultural use of DDT saved lives by slowing the development of resistance. Furthermore this is exactly the case Carson made in Silent Spring, warning that overuse would destroy the effectiveness of insecticides:
…Karlgaard is also wrong to claim that malaria was almost eradicated. It was almost eradicated in some places like Sri Lanka, but then returned with a vengeance, not because DDT was banned (again, it wasn’t) but because mosquitoes developed resistance to DDT.
Reynolds and the people he links to have to know that they are wrong. They have to: the facts are so clear and plain that they command assent. But Reynolds and his ilk continue their dishonest smears. I’m not really sure why people abandon their rationality in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. I suspect that for people like Reynolds, the fact that the environmental movement and its preferred tactics have succeeded in protecting the planet where the Market that men like Reynolds worship had failed miserably is a bit too much to bear. That the dirty f-cking hippies were so spectacularly right and the cool, cool, considerate men of business and economics were so spectacularly wrong on this issue is something that men like Reynolds are not strong enough to face.
Kudos for the oblique 1776 reference.
Comment 5/22/2007
As much as I like the title is is downhill from there.
When you write, “the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science” it demonstrates exactly how limited your ability see anything outside of your new religion is. Your absolutist conclusion is flawed on so many levels it transcends logical and morphs into comedy.
BTW, a new study concludes than ethanol will cause as much pollution as gasoline. Except it doesn’t calculate the amount of air pollution caused by making ethanol from corn. Net result, more air pollution.
As is often the case with liberals you are actually making things worse.
Carry on.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-25,GGLJ:en&q=ethanol+air+pollution
Comment 5/22/2007
[…] Kevin at Lean Left, in response to the response to his blogmate’s post about the debunking of global warming myths, takes on popular Tennessee blogger Instapundit, who Kevin says is a blatant distributor of one of these myths: It is something of a religious belief among a section of right-wingers that Rachel Carlson is mass-murderer because she got DDT banned and now hundreds of thousands of people are needlessly dying of malaria. Glenn Reynolds, for example, has made that notion something of a personal hobby horse for years know. The problem is that it is all nonsense: […]
Pingback 5/22/2007
Where did Kevin bring up ethanol? Or was that just to distract from the points he did make?
Comment 5/22/2007
Wow! Should I feel honored to receive such attention here at Lean Left, even if my arguments were twisted and manipulated.
Where to begin. How about the top?
Tgirch’s post has brought some of the usual anti-climate change talking-points.
This will be repeated several times in this thread- I’m not denying that the earths climate is changing (it is of course in a constant state of change), but I will question the amount of anthropogenic input responsible for it. It would be irresponsible to say otherwise.
. I never brought any “anti-climate change” talking points to this argument. But again, thanks for twisting my words.
The “aerosol caused the cooling during the 1940’s to 1970’s” argument rests on the proving whther or not the following statement is true- “It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpretation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols)”. I argues in the previous thread that the studies I observed never indicated that this was the case. I’m not sure where these facts are coming from that show the cooling was greater in the areas with higher aerosol concentrations. I would be more than happy to see them, but no one has ever been able to produce this as far as I’m aware.
I also stated a widely accepted fact about increased solar sunspot activity causing temperature change in various ways throughout the solar system, but did not say this was the ONLY or PRIMARY cause of Global warming. But again, please twist away with my words.
The IPCC report laid out the scientific consensus pretty clearly, and it was all over the mainstream media:
And if the media says it it must be true! Right? Right. Well, there are some well credentialed scientists in the field of climatology who do not agree with the supposed “consensus” from the IPCC report.
Here’s a brief roundup of these folks, and the reasons why they don’t agree with this supposed “consensus”-
http://blog.mises.org/archives/006620.asp
An excerpt-
“Dr Pielke is co-author (with W R Cotton) of ‘Human Impacts on Weather & Climate’ CUP 2007, & a large number of proper scientific papers.
In a summary of his views he says (inter alia): “Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling” And:
“In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.”
So no, there is not a consensus in my opinion as to the amount of anthropogenic global warming.
Then you go off on DDT and Glenn Reynolds. Rachel Carsons hysteria about the dangers of DDT prevented its use in various places the US did business around the world, and this resulted in millions of deaths from malaria, and does to this day.
You talk about scientific consensus, and then make this argument?
Wow.
Comment 5/22/2007
Where did Kevin bring up ethanol? Or was that just to distract from the points he did make?
When Kevin wrote, “the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science” he opened the door.
Ethanol is supposed to save the Earth from Global Warming. IT WON’T. But it will create more air pollution while driving up food prices and hurting people as far away as Mexico. I live about 20 miles from the Staley Ethanol Plant in Loudon County. It is one of the largest sources of air pollution in Tennessee. Loudon County has the fifth highest occurrence of lung cancer in America. Ironically those people are dying for those who don’t understand science. Oh well, at least it created 250 jobs.
But please don’t let me interfere with this orgy of unintended consequences. If it feels good then do it. I hope all the true believers purchase Prius hybrids and stop using toilet paper. If you care you will.
Carry on.
Comment 5/22/2007
Number9:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we were to formally announce our total opposition to ethanol.
Please carry on, and this time address the relevant topics.
Tman:
So no, there is not a consensus in my opinion as to the amount of anthropogenic global warming.
See my responses to you in the other thread, but in a nutshell, you’re right that there’s disagreement about the amount of AGW, but wrong about the range of plausible possibilities. Even on the low end of what’s generally believed within the scientific community, human impact is still thought to be profound. It’s just a matter of whether that impact amounts to “uh oh” or “holy shit,” and what (if anything) we can do to avert catastrophe.
Comment 5/22/2007
Also, as pointed out in the other thread, you make the risibly simplistic assumption that aerosolized pollutants hover around their point of generation and never migrate. Not necessarily a safe assumption. In any case, the facts you claim you’d love to see are spelled out in gory detail here.
Comment 5/22/2007
you’re right that there’s disagreement about the amount of AGW, but wrong about the range of plausible possibilities.
“Plausible Possibilities” does not equal “scientific consensus”. You are wrong to state that there is a scientific consensus as to whether or not human activity is the main contributor to GW. And from strictly a numbers standpoint, you can’t even show that human activity causes more than 10% of an increase in CO2 levels. Never mind that CO2 isn’t even the main contributor to GW.
It’s just a matter of whether that impact amounts to “uh oh” or “holy shit,” and what (if anything) we can do to avert catastrophe.
There are many scientists who are more concerned with the law of unintended consequences, and as #9 showed in this thread, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. As I stated before, I agree that we should do what we can to limit and control pollution, but sometimes our efforts to fix one problem has a tendency to make things worse somewhere else.
you make the risibly simplistic assumption that aerosolized pollutants hover around their point of generation and never migrate
So it did cover the whole world and cause cooling. This is in negation of Kevins (unproven) point that “the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern”.
You guys can’t even keep your unproven points straight.
Comment 5/22/2007
Tgirsch writes to me, “Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we were to formally announce our total opposition to ethanol. Please carry on, and this time address the relevant topics.”
Fine. Let’s address the “relevant topics”.
The “relevant topic” is the “the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science” which is a complete and total canard. I have to throw the Bullshit card at this one. Sorry.
Ethanol is the Number One “solution” to Global Warming. You are lecturing me about “belief”, which does sounds like a religion when you frame it that way. Ethanol will not make ANY difference to Global Warming but it will increase air pollution and make food more expensive especially for the poorest people. There are riots in Mexico right now because of a lack of corn. Why, that corn is going to Ethanol. Happy now?
Your new religion is now hurting people. It is taking food off their plates. And it accomplishes nothing. Are you beginning to see the unintended consequences?
Ironically nuclear power could make a difference on Global Warming if your theories are correct and would also reduce air pollution which is what I care about. Nukes would be a compromise solution for both of our positions.
You guys like Nukes?
Or does that not fit into your view of “environmental science”?
I await your ideas on how to solve your “perceived” problem of Global Warming along with the real problem of air pollution. Can you do so without hurting people? Without taking food off their plates?
Comment 5/22/2007
Number9:
Ethanol is the Number One “solution” to Global Warming.
[Speaking of bullshit] According to whom? I mean, really, back that up! The Sierra Club is consistently opposed to ethanol, and if they’re not the poster children for the environmental movement, then who is? The NRDC is more optimistic, but they list it as less important than efficiency and smart growth (see Figure 2) in terms of its impact, and they also caution against the use of low-percentage blends of ethanol (which do, indeed worsen air pollution) and against exclusive use of corn to generate ethanol.
In summation, while ethanol gets a lot of attention, any attempt to claim that it’s the “Number One ’solution’” is complete and utter bullshit.
Ironically nuclear power could make a difference on Global Warming if your theories are correct and would also reduce air pollution which is what I care about.
Solve the solid waste problem, and solve the NIMBY problem, and I’m listening. Until then, you’re just sweeping a very big “Yabut” under the rug.
Again, I notice that you refuse to drop the ethanol canard, presumably because you have nothing of substance to add. So I challenge you again: Assume ethanol’s 100% off the table, and start over.
I await your ideas on how to solve your “perceived” problem of Global Warming along with the real problem of air pollution.
No single silver bullet. Solving the problem will require a combination of mandated efficiency improvements, plus serious investments in wind, solar, wave, and possibly even hydroelectric. Please note that none of these worsens air pollution, nor does any of them have any direct impact on the cost of food (except that we can expect the cost of power in general, and therefore the cost of all goods including food, to increase somewhat as a result). At some point, you’re probably also going to have to implement a carbon tax of some sort (the horror!), to both discourage use of carbon-based fuels as well as to help finance the alternatives.
Can you do so without hurting people?
The better question is whether changing course hurts more or fewer people than our current course. Pretending that our current course harms no one is dangerously simplistic.
Comment 5/22/2007
Tman:
You are wrong to state that there is a scientific consensus as to whether or not human activity is the main contributor to GW.
As Kevin points out, the IPCC report is more than enough to prove you wrong on this count. And before you go there, please note that “consensus” does not mean “the complete and total absence of any dissent whatsoever.” In our context it means “overwhelming agreement,” and that most certainly exists today.
And from strictly a numbers standpoint, you can’t even show that human activity causes more than 10% of an increase in CO2 levels. Never mind that CO2 isn’t even the main contributor to GW.
Both of these talking points have already been raised and refuted, even if you refuse to acknowledge that this is the case. As mentioned (and linked) before, increased atmospheric CO2 is indeed the single best explanation for our current warming trends, and human activities are indeed the single best explanation for these increases. You can fold your arms and hold your breath and sing “Lalalalala” all you want, and this will still be true.
There are many scientists who are more concerned with the law of unintended consequences
True enough, but that doesn’t mean they deny the profound impact human activities are currently having. Their disagreement concerns what to do about the problem, not the cause of the problem. By and large, they agree that we’re the cause.
And the fact that you’re now swayed by #9’s bait-and-switch only underscores the accusation I made in the other thread: you’ll grasp at any criticism of AGW theory and cling to it with all your might, without any apparent concern for its relevance or its accuracy.
So it did cover the whole world and cause cooling.
Clearly, you stopped reading there and didn’t follow the link. My statement in no way contradicts Kevin’s. It merely points out that your objection was laughably simplistic, apart from being wholly unwarranted (as demonstrated by Kevin’s link).
Comment 5/22/2007
Tgirsch,
increased atmospheric CO2 is indeed the single best explanation for our current warming trends, and human activities are indeed the single best explanation for these increases.
The single best, huh. Carbon Dioxide is present in the Earth’s atmosphere at a low concentration of approximately 0.038%. Human activity is not the leading contributor to increased CO2 levels. How you can make the statement that this is the “single best” contributor is baffling. I’m not saying “lalalalala” I’m saying the numbers don’t add up. And I quoted other climatologists who have stats that support my argument.
By and large, they agree that we’re the cause.
I disagree, but even if this was true, this doesn’t automatically mean they are right. There was a “scientific consensus” about the Eugenics movement prior to WWII, but that didn’t make it right.
you’ll grasp at any criticism of AGW theory and cling to it with all your might, without any apparent concern for its relevance or its accuracy.
Everything I quoted was both relevant and accurate. You guys are getting worse at spinning and manipulating my words.
Clearly, you stopped reading there and didn’t follow the link.
Clearly you are grasping at straws. To defend your argument on aerosols you would show that areas that have increased amounts of these chemicals in the air showed increased amounts of cooling during the time period in question. This is what some argue. But the problem is that numbers show the cooling was worldwide, and wasn’t necessarily confined to these areas. So what do you do? You move the goalposts by saying that the aerosols spread out, thus negating the original argument.
This is why the skepticism about the “consensus” continues to grow.
Comment 5/22/2007
“Ethanol is supposed to save the Earth from Global Warming.”
Could source that?
I’ve never heard ethanol promoted that way. I’ve heard its cleaner in the sense that it doesn’t produce other waste products that can be harmful. I’ve heard that it reduces dependence on oil from other parts of the world. But I’ve never heard it promoted as a greenhouse gas reducer.
http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/questions.php
Oh and if it’s such a liberal thing then why:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/06/20050615-2.html
http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/StarTelegram_15nov06.pdf
http://www.e85fuel.com/news/121701fyi.htm
And we all know the radical liberals that make up energy industry that built the very plants you are going on about.
Ethanols popularity in washington is all bout Iowa’s caucus schedule and not much else. I can buy that it’s bi-partisan stupidity but it totally doesn’t relate to the argument at hand.
Comment 5/22/2007
And the fact that you’re now swayed by #9’s bait-and-switch
I stayed with the original premise Tgirsch. You did not. Surrender the premise made by Kevin and we can continue.
I submit “the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science” is erroneous. There is no bait and switch. I did not deviate from the original argument.
I am sure you are aware that the investment in Ethanol plant production is staggering. The idea that efficiency and smart growth is greater than that Ethanol investment is curious. Do you wish to go down that path?
Comment 5/22/2007
Back to the greenhouse stuff:
It’s very simple to me so I’ll put in Simpsons terms.
Global Warming proponents = Dr. Hibbard
Global Warming deniers = Dr. Nick
Comment 5/22/2007
Hi, Dr. Nick!
Comment 5/22/2007
Not that the Mises institute has enough credibility to really bother rebutting, but here’s a brutal demolition of that particular pile of bullshit. (Note that this is one one comment in the thread and for technical reasons the speaker continues in the very next comment.)
Comment 5/22/2007
Tman:
Carbon Dioxide is present in the Earth’s atmosphere at a low concentration of approximately 0.038%.
I’d swear I’ve linked this before, but here it is again: Over the last 150 years, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm — an increase of almost 36%, nearly all of which is attributable to human activity. You’re obsessing about the “0.038%” number while ignoring what levels are considered normal, acceptable, and safe, or what levels have historically been. “Let’s make the number look really small, so we can dismissively wave it away.” It would be like arguing that you shouldn’t care about how much money the federal government spends on education, since it’s “only” 1.9% of the total budget. (It’s still over $54 billion.)
Human activity is not the leading contributor to increased CO2 levels.
Wrong again. It can account for virtually all of it, and then some:
(See also above link.)
I disagree, but even if this was true, this doesn’t automatically mean they are right. There was a “scientific consensus” about the Eugenics movement prior to WWII, but that didn’t make it right.
And the goal posts move yet again. When you can’t discredit the science, go after the scientists, or science itself. (Even assuming that there was a true consensus on eugenics, something I won’t concede without references.)
Everything I quoted was both relevant and accurate.
It was neither. Everything you quoted has been extensively debunked in either the original article or in our subsequent links; you merely stubbornly refuse to retract them, despite having virtually no compelling evidence to support your claims. Hint: Repeating something doesn’t make it true, especially not in the face of contradictory evidence.
But the problem is that numbers show the cooling was worldwide, and wasn’t necessarily confined to these areas.
You never get tired of being wrong, do you? Localized production of aerosol pollution can and does cause cooling on a global scale; because they don’t all stay put, but instead move around, this effect is witnessed at the global level. However, as evidenced by Kevin’s links, cooling was more noticeable in the hemisphere where the pollution was produced. Therefore, the whole planet witnessed the cooling effect, with the Northern hemisphere having a more dramatic cooling effect than the Southern. No contradiction, all the evidence adds up, and the goalposts are wholly and completely unmoved. Kevin’s statements are true, and mine are true. I know that this may be too complex a concept for you to grasp, what with there being two whole propositions being made simultaneously, but there it is…
This is why the skepticism about the “consensus” continues to grow.
Even this statement demonstrates profound ignorance. Within the scientific community, the consensus is strengthening, not weakening. The only place where the “skeptics” have any foothold is in the political arena, and even there, I suspect their influence is waning.
Number9:
I stayed with the original premise Tgirsch.
Bullshit. Nobody said a goddamn thing about ethanol until you did. You’ve long since shown that you have absolutely no intellectual integrity on this issue, avoiding substance like the plague. You’ve addressed exactly zero of New Scientists’ myths and responses, and in response to Kevin’s claim that right-wingers widely reject environmental science, you bring up a subject (ethanol) that (1) absolutely nobody was talking about; and (2) that is actively being promoted by many of those very same right-wingers.
I am sure you are aware that the investment in Ethanol plant production is staggering. The idea that efficiency and smart growth is greater than that Ethanol investment is curious.
Are you really so dense as to conflate what’s currently being done with what ought to be done? What environmental groups are lobbying for and what the government is actually doing are two very different things. If you think the government is spending too much on ethanol to the exclusion of other solutions, I’m inclined to agree. But that’s never been my argument. Environmental groups lobby much harder for efficiency mandates, smart growth, and wind/solar than for ethanol, and they list these as having far more potential in terms of potential impact. Dollars invested, especially by this decidedly industry-friendly, environmentally-unfriendly administration, are scarcely relevant.
I suppose, though, that you’re a libertarian, and are therefore utterly incapable of thinking about things in any other terms than dollars and cents.
But go ahead, continue being a total chicken shit and hiding behind ethanol and nuclear while refusing to address anything else (and in particular, anything we’ve actually suggested or linked to here). It’s what we’ve come to expect of you on these issues. You’ve never met a substantive point that you haven’t dodged. Why change now?
Comment 5/22/2007
The statment “the refusal of right-wingers to believe in environmental science” seems to be disputed, but it is consistent with almost all of the comments and arguments in the right-wing blogs, conservative news, etc. Call a spade a spade. To call this line “BS” or a canard, is another kind of denial, perhaps to mislead.
Comment 5/22/2007
the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to 380 ppm — an increase of almost 36%,
The CO2 concentration has been higher and lower in the past, but any way you slice it .038% is .038% is .038%. Are you arguing this percentage?
nearly all of which is attributable to human activity
Nearly all? There seems to be some debate about this. I don’t find a “scientific consensus” that “nearly all” of the increase in co2 percentage is a result of human activity. In fact, what I find is that the earth has had co2 concentration levels much higher and lower than this throughout its history and at no time did this fluctuation have anything to do with “human activity”. The only studies you refer to list a change in the percentage of co2 in the atmosphere from around 260 ppm to 370 ppm. There have been glacial hiccups that caused a bigger change in co2 levels than this. That quote from Real Climate? That’s what we call climate change. It’s been going on forever. No matter what we do.
And tgirsch, in terms of global warming, let me again remind you, co2 levels are .038% of the total atmosphere.
When you can’t discredit the science, go after the scientists,
Actually, I used science and data presented by scientists to make my point. Who’s discrediting science? How come whenever I use math you get mad and say I’m debunked or discredited, yet never seem to have a reason why?
I know that this may be too complex a concept for you to grasp, what with there being two whole propositions being made simultaneously, but there it is…
This aerosol part is getting funny. The argument goes like this- “there was a cooling between 1940 and 1970, which pretty much makes the co2 argument moot. But wait! Aerosols in the air might have caused this! So, if there were high concentrations of aerosols somewhere, we’d see more cooling than others! Except we don’t. We instead find that that the cooling happened in various amounts around the world regardless of aerosol percentage. I know! The aerosol covered the world! One big aerosol balloon!
Please tell me the aerosol percentage wasn’t .038%.
Within the scientific community, the consensus is strengthening, not weakening. The only place where the “skeptics” have any foothold is in the political arena, and even there, I suspect their influence is waning.
Do you even know what the IPCC is? You realize it’s a political organization, right?
Comment 5/23/2007
and in response to Kevin’s claim that right-wingers widely reject environmental science, you bring up a subject (ethanol) that (1) absolutely nobody was talking about; and (2) that is actively being promoted by many of those very same right-wingers.
What???
Your number two proves my point tgirsch. You do realize that don’t you?
Why you choose to defend Kevin when he goes out on a partisan limb is puzzling. You know his premise has no basis but defend him you must.
Yes, the wingnuts are wrong about Ethanol. Just as the moonbats and libertarians that support Ethanol are also. Everybody is wrong about corn based Ethanol. You cannot find a “solution” that causes more problems than corn based Ethanol. Switchgrass may have promise but who knows?
You write about “what’s currently being done with what ought to be done”. What ought to be done is horseshoes and hand-grenades. Follow the money. No one is going to invest in “efficiency and smart growth” unless there is a return on investment. We also cannot conserve our way out of the problem.
We have to have energy to survive. Deferring nuclear until every single hippie is satisfied with every single perceived issue means no nuclear. So if not nuclear, and no new refineries, and no more coal, what do you propose we use for electricity to cool and heat our homes? What do you propose we fuel our cars with?
Kevin’s title is perfect. The hippies are the problem. They used to be called Luddites.
The Hippies Can Never Be Allowed to Win.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman:
any way you slice it .038% is .038% is .038%. Are you arguing this percentage?
I’m not arguing the number. I’m arguing against your implication that just because the number seems small, it’s somehow negligible or unimportant. Are you arguing against the 36% increase, or trying to argue that a 36% increase is not noteworthy?
Who’s discrediting science?
You are when you try to compare current climate consensus to a (probably fabricated) past consensus on eugenics. You essentially said “even if there were an consensus [there is, but nevermind], I’d still think it’s wrong,” unless I read you incorrectly.
what I find is that the earth has had co2 concentration levels much higher and lower than this throughout its history and at no time did this fluctuation have anything to do with “human activity”.
And if you’d look further, you’d notice that for those other periods, there are other explanations for the increases — explanations which do not currently apply. That CO2 has increased in the past because of non-human causes does not necessarily acquit humans today, any more than the fact that forest fires sometimes start naturally somehow acquits the careless camper or ranger who starts one. Sure, fossil fuel use can’t explain prehistoric CO2 increases, what with fossil fuel use not being around yet; but natural causes like volcanic eruptions and geologic methane releases can’t explain current CO2 increases because there haven’t been any. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
If you have an alternate theory as to why CO2 levels are increasing, by all means, suggest it, and let’s test the theory. As it turns out, all the ones that have so far been suggested have been totally devoid of evidence to support them, while human CO2 generation is extremely well-documented. When you see hoofprints in the sand, look for horses, not zebras. The obvious answer is usually (even if not always) the correct one.
there was a cooling between 1940 and 1970, which pretty much makes the co2 argument moot. But wait! Aerosols in the air might have caused this!
No, it doesn’t make the argument “moot.” And no, it’s not that they “might have” caused this — we know that they did cause this. Your ignorance of the solid evidence of this doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there.
So, if there were high concentrations of aerosols somewhere, we’d see more cooling than others! Except we don’t. We instead find that that the cooling happened in various amounts around the world regardless of aerosol percentage.
Uhh, no, that’s not what we find at all. I’m beginning to question your reading comprehension. We find a worldwide cooling effect with the most dramatic changes in those regions where the pollution was generated — which is exactly what we’d expect to find by the standards that you set way back in comment #5, and in comment 10 of the previous thread. Quoth YOU:
Actually, that’s EXACTLY how it worked out, as demonstrated in the above links. Here it is for the fifth time, in case you’re too lazy to scroll up. But now that your stated burden of proof has been met, you’re weaseling out, and accusing us of moving the goal posts. How typical. Why not take the high road, and concede the point, already?
Do you even know what the IPCC is? You realize it’s a political organization, right?
Absolutely. If it weren’t, the panel’s findings would have been much MORE unified, and MORE dire. As it is, the US and China in particular lobbied heavily to soften the language.
But let’s throw it back into your court, shall we? At what point would you accept that there’s a true consensus? When 99% of qualified scientists agree? 99.9%? 99.99%? Or when 60% of scientists endorse a conclusion you’d rather hear?
Number9:
Your number two proves my point tgirsch.
How so? As you say, follow the money. They’re “endorsing” environmental science only in the very limited scope in which it can make them a quick buck. The laundry list of right-wing denials of environmental science is long and sordid, however: long before global warming there was DDT, PCBs, CFCs, etc. In all of these cases, the environmentalists proved correct, and the “pro-business” lobby fought them tooth and nail, obfuscating the science at every opportunity. (The CFC crisis was solved only when 3M patented a safe replacement, and thus had a financial incentive to suddenly support the conclusions they’d previously been working to obfuscate.) I’m sure others who are older than I am could name even more such examples.
Everybody is wrong about corn based Ethanol.
Including you?
No one is going to invest in “efficiency and smart growth” unless there is a return on investment.
In Libertarian Fantasy Land(tm), where the profit motive is the only motive, you’re probably right. Big part of why I’m not a Libertarian — “the market” will decide to move away from fossil fuels only after it’s far too late. (”The market” would also sell weapons technology to the highest bidder, even if that bidder is our worst enemy, but I digress…) However, with government-sponsored incentives and mandates, you can encourage investment in that direction until the economies of scale let the market take over in the newly-corrected direction. Which, as it turns out, is exactly the course of action I previously endorsed (and which you ignored). Add it to the ever-growing list of points you’ve ignored.
Deferring nuclear until every single hippie is satisfied with every single perceived issue means no nuclear.
Who said anything about satisfying “every single hippie?” Certainly not me. And on that topic, you still have yet to extricate Ted’s foot from your ass, concerning you whining about the CF toxic waste problem out of one side of your mouth while downplaying the [much bigger] nuclear toxic waste problem out of the other.
So if not nuclear, and no new refineries, and no more coal, what do you propose we use for electricity to cool and heat our homes?
Neat straw man! Did you build it all by yourself? I’ve never argued that we can totally eliminate coal and petroleum. Ever. Point to anyplace where I ever have. Go ahead and google, I’ll wait… Back yet? Empty-handed? Of course you are! What I have argued is that a combination of wind, solar, wave, hydroelectric, smart growth, and efficiency improvements would cumulatively result in a significant reduction in our fossil fuel use, and in the process reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, as well as reduce air pollution. It’s literally win-win-win. That’s the argument I have [repeatedly] made. But since it’s much easier for you to ignore that, as you ignore absolutely everything you find politically inconvenient, you instead continue to change the subject, erect straw-men, and otherwise evade any substantive discussion of these points.
Nobody’s asking you to trade in your car for Birkenstocks, or your electric lights for soy candles. We’re asking you to downsize your Hummer to a civic, and to trade your incandescent bulbs for CF and (eventually) LED. And I’m personally asking not just you, but everyone, to abandon the bullshit attitude that any course of action that doesn’t solve the entire problem is not worth taking at all.
Comment 5/23/2007
tgirsch,
I’m arguing against your implication that just because the number seems small, it’s somehow negligible or unimportant.
Seems small? Less than 1% is small. There are other gasses in the atmosphere that have more significance in terms of warming and/or cooling.
Are you arguing against the 36% increase, or trying to argue that a 36% increase is not noteworthy?
Niether. I’m stating that there isn’t a consensus among climate scientists that a 36% increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is the main or primary reason for the change in temperature. The vast majority of the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere occurred following the Second World War, yet when using the hockey stick to show that there has been unprecendented warming in the last 100 years, you cannot use CO2 as the culprit, because it followed the temperature swing, not the other way around.
You essentially said “even if there were an consensus [there is, but nevermind], I’d still think it’s wrong,” unless I read you incorrectly.
There was a scientific consensus about eugenics. In 1907, Indiana Gov. Frank Hanley signed the Compulsory Sterilization Law, which called for forcibly preventing the “procreation of confirmed criminals, idiots, imbeciles and rapists.” The reason this legislation passed was because it was supported by a “scientific consensus”. There were professors of biology from Harvard and other Universities who promoted this view.
They had a “consensus” but they were WRONG.
CO2 has increased in the past because of non-human causes does not necessarily acquit humans today.
Of what? Of course we produce more co2. Does this account for the increase in temperature or not?
natural causes like volcanic eruptions and geologic methane releases can’t explain current CO2 increases because there haven’t been any.
This is close to the stupidest thing you’ve said so far on this subject.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/current_volcs/current.html
http://hakone.eri.u-tokyo.ac.jp/vrc/erup/erup.html
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/volcanoes/active.html
http://volcano.wr.usgs.gov/cap/rss/vhpcaprss.xml
The bottom line here is that humans are not the only thing that cause increases in co2 levels, but even if we were this would not be enough to account for the change in temperature. And the evidence for this is that the warming trend began BEFORE the recorded increase in CO2 levels.
We find a worldwide cooling effect with the most dramatic changes in those regions where the pollution was generated
No we don’t. Proving the Aerosol effect depends on accurate temperature readings from the areas and the time periods in question, as well as the accurate atmospheric measurements of these same areas in question, and these do not exist. In fact, due to things like heat islands and the lack of calibrated instruments during the time periods in question no one should be extrapolating any specific theories in regards to the aerosol effect.
But hey, I’m all ears if you have proof otherwise. Good luck with that.
But let’s throw it back into your court, shall we?
Sure, why not.
At what point would you accept that there’s a true consensus?
I accept today that there is a true consensus that there is a warming trend of todays global climate. I do not accept that there is a true consensus among scientists today that mankind in 100% responsible for the warming trend.
Hey, that sounds familiar! Remember this?
I’m not denying that the earths climate is changing (it is of course in a constant state of change), but I will question the amount of anthropogenic input responsible for it. It would be irresponsible to say otherwise.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman, if you can find a single reference to someone claiming that mankind is 100% responsible for global warming, then your statement is meaningful. Since you can’t, it is meaningless.
As for 0.036% making CO2 unimportant, if you believe that, then you must really believe that ozone is an inconsequential component of the atmosphere, yes? After all, at 0.000004%, that puts it at 1/10,000 the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (by volume). Would you agree that ozone is an important gas to have in the atmosphere because, even at 1/10,000 the concentration of CO2, it serves a very useful purpose, or do you believe that the ozone layer is inconsequential to life on earth? Just wondering.
Comment 5/23/2007
Hi Ted,
if you can find a single reference to someone claiming that mankind is 100% responsible for global warming, then your statement is meaningful.
Straw man. I never argued for or against this, and neither did anyone else. Tgirsch said several times that “increased atmospheric CO2 is indeed the single best explanation for our current warming trends, and human activities are indeed the single best explanation for these increases.” I disagree with this analysis completely, and I you can read the above posts for your explanations why.
you must really believe that ozone is an inconsequential component of the atmosphere, yes?
Depends on what “consequence” you are referring to. In terms of protecting sunling from frying my skin, of course it is consequential. In terms of the overall atmosphere, meh.
do you believe that the ozone layer is inconsequential to life on earth?
Depends on which life you are referring to. There are organisms on the earth that would not be affected in any significant way by the changes in the ozone layer, there are some that are.
Are you now going to tell me that ozone depletion is causing global warming? This should be interesting.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman “I accept today that there is a true consensus that there is a warming trend of todays global climate. I do not accept that there is a true consensus among scientists today that mankind in 100% responsible for the warming trend.”
me “Tman, if you can find a single reference to someone claiming that mankind is 100% responsible for global warming, then your statement is meaningful. Since you can’t, it is meaningless.”
Straw man?
“Are you now going to tell me that ozone depletion is causing global warming?
No.
Comment 5/23/2007
Yes Ted, straw man.
Comment 5/23/2007
“When you see hoofprints in the sand, look for horses, not zebras.”
Can we pretend you said “camels”, not “zebras”? Zebras have hooves quite like those of horses.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman:
Less than 1% is small.
Small, yes, but potentially still big enough to make a difference. That’s the part you keep ignoring. A 1% solution of arsenic isn’t very much arsenic, but it’s still more than enough to harm you.
There are other gasses in the atmosphere that have more significance in terms of warming and/or cooling.
Well, yes, but the concentrations of those gases hasn’t changed substantially, whereas the concentration of CO2 has changed. In any case, this objection has already been addressed:
That is, while other gases have stronger greenhouse effects, CO2 has changed much more dramatically, and has resulted in much greater overall impact.
I’m stating that there isn’t a consensus among climate scientists that a 36% increase in CO2 levels in the last 100 years is the main or primary reason for the change in temperature.
Once again, please define “consensus.” The overwhelming majority of climate scientists do hold that this is true. Only a very few don’t. Once again, you’re holding to a definition of “consensus” that would also exclude evolution from the purview of scientific consensus. How much more consensus do you want?
And the evidence for this is that the warming trend began BEFORE the recorded increase in CO2 levels.
Wrong again. The upward trend in CO2 concentration dates to around 1750, with the dramatic upward trend starting around 1850 (just in time for the industrial revolution). Concentrations have been rising consistently since 1880 according to another source, and still another. The data is quite consistent. This convenient graph combines the atmospheric CO2 levels by year and the average temperature by year on the same graph — it clearly shows that the warming follows the increase in CO2.
The reason this legislation passed was because it was supported by a “scientific consensus”.
Source, please. Specifically, I want to see evidence that the majority of the scientific community supported the eugenics movement, and what percentage endorsed it. It seems to me that there’s far greater consensus today concerning climate change than there ever was concerning eugenics. But feel free to prove me wrong, with cites.
[Me] natural causes like volcanic eruptions and geologic methane releases can’t explain current CO2 increases because there haven’t been any.
[You] This is close to the stupidest thing you’ve said so far on this subject.
Point taken. I should have said that there haven’t been nearly enough to account for the increased concentrations and the warming. And in terms of volcanic eruptions, they also spew a bunch of SO2 into the atmosphere, and SO2 is known to counteract the greenhouse effect. The larger point is that natural phenomena like volcanoes are nowhere near sufficient to explain the trends we’ve been seeing.
But hey, I’m all ears if you have proof otherwise. Good luck with that.
Yeah, right. After you just dismissively waved away forensic science in one breath, it’d be tough to come up with anything you wouldn’t rationalize away. Still, you’ve moved the goal posts yet again. You started off at “we don’t have evidence that this happened,” but when shown evidence that this was false, you switched to “we can’t ever know if this happened, because the instrumentation of the time wasn’t good enough.”
I do not accept that there is a true consensus among scientists today that mankind in 100% responsible for the warming trend.
OK, now show me where anyone ever argued that humankind is “100% responsible,” and you’ll have a point. Until then, yawn.
Hey, remember this?
See my responses to you in the other thread, but in a nutshell, you’re right that there’s disagreement about the amount of AGW, but wrong about the range of plausible possibilities. Even on the low end of what’s generally believed within the scientific community, human impact is still thought to be profound. It’s just a matter of whether that impact amounts to “uh oh” or “holy shit,” and what (if anything) we can do to avert catastrophe.
There is consensus that human activity is largely responsible for current warming trends, whether you care to acknowledge this or not. Of course, it’s probably easier for you to continue hiding behind your 100% number.
(And by the way, you still haven’t answered the question: At what point would you accept there’s “consensus” that human activity is largely responsible for current warming trends? What percentage of climatologists would have to agree in principle with that statement before you’d accept that as consensus? Again, if you answer 100%, then there can never be consensus about anything.)
Tgirsch said several times that “increased atmospheric CO2 is indeed the single best explanation for our current warming trends, and human activities are indeed the single best explanation for these increases.”
What about that statement implies “100% responsible?” Seriously, is your reading comprehension that terrible? If human activity were responsible for 60% of the carbon increase, and all other phenomena added up to 40%, my statement would still hold. As it happens, I suspect that number is a lot higher than 60%, but I can’t say exactly what it is.
To repeat: You said:
I do not accept that there is a true consensus among scientists today that mankind in 100% responsible for the warming trend.
Which amounts to “I do not accept a claim that nobody here made.”
Dan M:
Zebras have hooves quite like those of horses.
That’s rather the point of the expression. Since horses are far more common, they’re the much more likely explanation. Unless the point you’re trying to make is that the “hoofprints” look nothing like those of the “animals” being proposed by Tman and Number9, in which case I’m inclined to agree.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman, I honestly don’t understand what you are getting at with your strawman statement, unless you are saying you created a strawman by saying you do not accept something that nobody else has claimed or even mentioned (and I don’t mean just on this blog, I mean nobody). That is my point. The fact that you don’t accept mankind being 100% responsible for global warming is like me saying I don’t accept that mankind is 0% responsible. These are not claims any rational person is making, so to say we do not accept them is either to imply someone else is (strawman), or else it is meaningless - which is my point.
Comment 5/23/2007
Tman, I forgot to expand on my ozone point, since it obviously did not register with you. My point is this. Even you accept that ozone is important because it significantly blocks incoming UV radiation from the sun. So why is it that you have trouble accepting the physics that tell us that CO2 (present in earth’s atmosphere in quantities 10,000X that of ozone) is effective in blocking IR radiation coming from the earth’s surface? No scientist, regardless of their stance on global warming, would argue that CO2 is not an effective gas in blocking IR radiation. On the other hand, the three gases that comprise about 99% of the atmosphere are essentially transparent to IR radiation. So, of the gases that matter, CO2 comprises perhaps 3.6% by volume. But that too is meaningless. What matters is how effective the gas is at absorbing IR radiation and reemitting it toward earth (the true greenhouse effect). Turns out CO2 is very efficient at doing this, relative to water vapor. On the other hand, water vapor is present in more abundance in our atmosphere. The net result is water vapor contributes to the greenhouse effect, by some measures, about 3X as much as CO2 does. This is pure, unadulterated physics.
Your reliance on the fact that CO2 comprises only 0.036% of the atmosphere - and thus can’t be a serious contributor to the greenhouse effect - is naive. It is roughly equivalent to me stating that nuclear reactors can’t possibly produce meaningful amounts of electricity because the amount of fuel they consume is so small. You stand a much better chance trying to dispute the magnitude of the change in CO2 levels, and failing there falling back to disputing what mechanism is responsible for the increase in CO2. To try and dispute that the CO2 in the atmosphere is not a significant contributor to the greenhouse effect won’t get you anywhere with anyone who understands the basics at hand (which is not to imply I understand everything about the greenhouse effect - far from it).
Comment 5/23/2007
Re zebras. Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought the line was meant to mean “Choose something that fits the data.”, not “Choose the likeliest thing that fits the data.”. Both made sense in context, and I’d not previously heard the expression.
Comment 5/24/2007
tgirsch,
I’m going to simplify the argument a little. Please correct me where I’m wrong in this recap.
You: The majority of Global warming is a result of athropogenic activity putting higher co2 levels in the atmosphere, and the data supports this. There is nothing that can account for the levels of temperature change more than the increase in co2 levels.
Me: Global warming as a result of increased levels of co2 is not proven. Most of the data sets I have seen do not show increased levels of co2 until after the warming trend began.
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/carbon_dioxide-ornl.gif
http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue26/images/large/pq2615536002.jpeg
Is that about right?
It seems to me that there’s far greater consensus today concerning climate change than there ever was concerning eugenics.
Eugenics had the support of of enough of the scientific community that 30 different states wrote forced sterilization in to law. Indiana didn’t even revoke the forced sterilization law until 1974. Consensus doesn’t mean that we need to react in a pavlovian fashion.
After you just dismissively waved away forensic science in one breath, it’d be tough to come up with anything you wouldn’t rationalize away.
In this thread I posted two seperate data points that clearly show that co2 levels rising came after the warming. This isn’t ignoring the science, this is using data to support an argument.
You started off at “we don’t have evidence that this happened,”
As far as the aerosol percentage, you don’t have the data points needed to accurately extrapolate a hypothesis.
but when shown evidence that this was false, you switched to “we can’t ever know if this happened, because the instrumentation of the time wasn’t good enough.”
What evidence? What data points have you presented the prove that aerosols accounted for the drop in warming? You haven’t shown this.
show me where anyone ever argued that humankind is “100% responsible,”
I shouldn’t have said that. But semantics aside, the point was pretty clear that you are trying to say that anthropogenic sources are the primary factor in global warming. If you want to dig me on that one statement fine. It doesn’t change the point.
There is consensus that human activity is largely responsible for current warming trends,
I disagree. I know you have reports that say “a majority of scientists believe that human activity is largely responsible for current warming trends” but I also have reports from other scientists who disagree. We can agree to disagree on this consensus.
What percentage of climatologists would have to agree in principle with that statement before you’d accept that as consensus?
More than we currently have.
If human activity were responsible for 60% of the carbon increase, and all other phenomena added up to 40%, my statement would still hold.
Even if you were right about this being even 99%, this would still only account for a global mean tempertaure increase of around 1.5 degrees C over the next 100 years. At least half of Earth’s estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
You haven’t been able to show that increased co2 levels are the primary source of the increase in temperature. And neither has your “scietific consensus”.
Comment 5/24/2007
Tman:
Global warming as a result of increased levels of co2 is not proven.
To argue this is to argue against the very greenhouse effect itself, something that not even Richard Lindzen, the most credible of the AGW skeptics, would do. More CO2 in the atmosphere means more warming, unless it’s counteracted by something else. Period. If you want to argue that there’s something else that’s having a more profound impact than increased CO2 concentrations, then you need to identify what that something else is, and come armed with the numbers to back up the claim. You don’t get to just say “it’s the magical mystery force, and not carbon,” especially when carbon’s greenhouse effect is essentially undisputed, and when the fact that we’ve increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 36% is also essentially undisputed.
Most of the data sets I have seen do not show increased levels of co2 until after the warming trend began.
You’ve got different data sets than what I was able to find, but no matter. Given that the warming effects of carbon are well-documented and not disputed even by those who deny AGW, it doesn’t matter what started the warming trend initially; you wind up in a feedback loop, and the problem worsens as carbon levels increase, until some external factor reverses the trend, or levels drop. As it happens, in this case, the best data I’ve found shows the dramatic increases in CO2 concentration happening ahead of the temperature increases.
Even the two graphs you link don’t say what you seem to be claiming they say — they merely show what the CO2 concentrations were, and don’t plot them against what the temperature was doing. The Oak Ridge graph, in particular, seems to support the case I’ve been making — that human emissions have had a profound effect on atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So I’m not sure how you think these graphs help your case…
Eugenics had the support of of enough of the scientific community that 30 different states wrote forced sterilization in to law.
You seem to have a naive concept of how that process works. State legislatures wrote such laws because they were popular with the [often racist] people at large, not because “science tells us this is the right thing to do.” The fact that the USDA once declared ketchup a “vegetable” doesn’t mean that there was ever scientific consensus that backed this up.
Your say-so doesn’t make it true, in other words. I know the horribly racist history many of our laws have, but that’s just not evidence that these laws ever had the full weight of the scientific community behind them. A couple of prominent voices seizing on popular sentiment is all you would need.
If the consensus had been so strong, you should have no trouble at all finding records of the scientific societies of the day throwing their weight behind these measures. The AAAS, for example, has been around since 1848; they were around back when eugenics had its heyday. Did they formally endorse eugenics, the way modern scientific organizations endorse climate science? It should be easy enough to demonstrate.
I still await concrete cites, instead of just your say-so.
In this thread I posted two seperate data points that clearly show that co2 levels rising came after the warming.
Except that (1) both of those are relevant to past warming trends, not the current one, and (2) it has been repeatedly explained to you that you’re making a post hoc, ergo propter hoc mistake there (”after, therefore because of”). I don’t know how much more plainly I can put it: We know that other things besides CO2 can and do cause warming; but we also know that CO2 does cause warming, unquestionably. Showing that warming trends started before CO2 levels increased does not somehow prove that CO2 doesn’t cause warming — we know absolutely that it does. It merely shows that CO2 was not the initial catalyst for a particular warming trend. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that this proves that carbon has nothing whatsoever (or very little) to do with the warming, and that position simply isn’t supported by the evidence or by physics.
What data points have you presented the prove that aerosols accounted for the drop in warming? You haven’t shown this.
You want data points? Have some:
[Emphasis mine.]
But semantics aside, the point was pretty clear that you are trying to say that anthropogenic sources are the primary factor in global warming.
For our current warming trend, they are, as graph after graph after graph shows. In fact, your Oak Ridge graph is one of the best pieces of evidence to back up my claim. Thanks for that.
but I also have reports from other scientists who disagree.
Yes, but those who disagree are decidedly in the minority. I can show you reports from scientists who disagree that evolution has taken place on earth. I can show you reports from scientists who claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. That these scientists exist doesn’t mean that there isn’t a scientific consensus on those topics.
We can agree to disagree on this consensus.
Only if we use vastly different definitions of consensus. The facts are clearly on my side:
And please note that, as demonstrated above, the current models align quite nicely with historical and current trends (see this graph again), so while the few skeptical scientists mentioned above are entitled to their beliefs, the data are not on their side.
More [consensus] than we currently have.
Way to go out on a limb there, and be specific. You may as well just say (admit?) that there’s simply nothing that will convince you you’re wrong.
At least half of Earth’s estimated mean temperature increment since the Nineteenth Century can be attributed to increased solar irradiance.
The link you give does not support that point; in fact, it doesn’t mention temperature at all. Did you mean to link something else? Also, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that solar irradiance can’t even come close to explaining current trends. Here’s more that contradicts you on this count:
[Emphasis mine.]
This is why we accuse you of cherry picking. You keep making the solar claim, which is poorly supported by the evidence, and which has tons of evidence going against it, but still you persist with it. You like it, not because it’s compelling, but because it appears superficially to support your preferred conclusion. But the claim simply doesn’t withstand scrutiny. The political forces that oppose doing anything about global warming constantly bring it up in hopes that it will cast confusion on the subject, and hope that nobody will pay any attention to the old man behind the curtain. And you fall right into their trap.
You haven’t been able to show that increased co2 levels are the primary source of the increase in temperature.
I’ve shown plenty of sources to support this, and you’ve even provided one (Oak Ridge), but none has been sufficient to convince you, because by your own admission, nothing would convince you.
Comment 5/24/2007
Anyone who doubts the effect increased CO2 in the atmosphere has on surface temperature should grab a thermometer, jump in a spaceship and visit Mercury, then travel twice Mercury’s distance to the sun out to Venus. Then explain why Venus, receiving 25% the radiation of Marcury, has a hotter surface temperature. (Clue: CO2-rich atmosphere.)
Comment 5/24/2007
Tgirsch, Tman’s desire for consensus rings of Xeno. Just half the number of sceptics. And half it again. And…
Comment 5/24/2007
Seriously, folks, this has been useful.
I’ve always been leery of ecowackos flying off the handle at pet causes and screwing with others as a side effect.
This thread (along with others here and in some other fora I frequent) has made it perfectly clear that there’s no real basis for doubting global warming or its cause.
Comment 5/24/2007
Then again, I do have a question: Corn ethanol.
The carbon for the ethanol comes from the air, so re-releasing it is fine. What’s it mean for it to be just as polluting as fossil fuels?
Comment 5/24/2007
Dan M:
As I understand it, corn-based ethanol releases some other nasty (non-CO2) pollutants into the atmosphere. The other knock on corn ethanol, besides the economic impact (corn prices rising) is the amount of energy it takes to produce it. They’re getting more efficient, but until fairly recently, corn ethanol was, on the whole, a losing proposition, because of the energy to make it plus the carbon and other pollutants it produced.
If switchgrass pans out, that may be the best hope. But corn- and soy-based ethanol have serious downside. You would also hope that much of the power needed to make the ethanol would eventually come from renewable sources, like wind, solar, wave, etc.
Ted:
I’m not sure Venus is the best example, because its atmosphere is almost 97% CO2, a MUCH higher concentration than even our direst worst-case scenarios here.
Comment 5/24/2007
Tgirsch, that is true, but then the surface temp is hot enough to liquefy some metals. Green house effect on Venus is estimated to maintain surface temp something like 400 degrees above what it otherwise would be. My point is it is an extreme, irrefutable example of greenhouse effect.
Also worth noting is some scientists believe the planet once had significant water and a fraction of the CO2. In other words, there is the possibility (I’m not saying probability) that Venus underwent a prolonged cycle of CO2->heat->CO2 feedback to get to where it is today - the hottest place this side of the sun.
Comment 5/25/2007
tgirsch,
I need to be more clear on every comment in this thread. When I wrote above “Global warming as a result of increased levels of co2 is not proven” what I meant was the same argument I’ve been making this whole thread, which is that increased co2 levels are not the primary or even secondary factor in the increased temperatures. I apologize that I was too vague about this point. I am aware that a change in CO2 levels affects the temperature. But I, along with many others question the amount of influence.
If you want to argue that there’s something else that’s having a more profound impact than increased CO2 concentrations, then you need to identify what that something else is,
I’ve said it before, the Sun I believe is a bigger influence.
Another piece of evidence is the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age.
Again, this is not to say the sun is the ONLY factor in global warming, but one that I believe is greater than co2 levels changing.
the two graphs you link don’t say what you seem to be claiming they say — they merely show what the CO2 concentrations were, and don’t plot them against what the temperature was doing.
When you plot global temperatures during the same time periods in question, there is no grey area. Changes in CO2 levels followed the change in global temperature.
Did they formally endorse eugenics, the way modern scientific organizations endorse climate science?
Yes. The Alberta Eugenics Board- (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Eugenics_Board ) had three Doctors of medecine out of the four members.
I would suggest reading the wikipedia page on Eugenics, as it lists the various prominent scientific voices at the time who endorsed the sterilization laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Showing that warming trends started before CO2 levels increased does not somehow prove that CO2 doesn’t cause warming
But it does show that Co2 wasn’t the primary motivator for the warming trend we see today.
The data points for aerosol cooling you used? That’s it? One volcano? (I thought there haven’t been any volcanos recently
)This isn’t sufficient to support your argument.
Your argument is that nations that had higher aerosol levels cooled more than those that didn’t. One volcano doesn’t prove this point in any substance.
You may as well just say (admit?) that there’s simply nothing that will convince you you’re wrong.
No, I will say that the “consensus” you refer to isn’t supported by enough data. And there are scientists who agree with me who aren’t wack job evolution-denying young earth creationists either. One was my geology professor at University of Colorado.
You keep making the solar claim, which is poorly supported by the evidence, and which has tons of evidence going against it, but still you persist with it.
Actually, things linke the Maunder minimum and other factors support my solar claims quite well. And the Stanford report you refer to admits that the evidence they use to conduct this analysis is based on satellite data that is only 30 years old, while things like the Maunder Minimum can support the argument for solar influence going back several hundred years.
And as far as co2 being the primary driver of the warming trend due to the greenhouse effect, you still haven’t proven that this is the case. Water vapor and cloud cover have more influence.
If you truly want to make the case for AGW, and show that impact amounts to a “holy shit,” than show me that the potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv is going to be greater than 1 °C.
1 °C change does not an “oh shit” moment make.
Comment 5/25/2007
Tman, don’t you find it a bit suspicious that the scientist who claims solar factors drive climate change is an astrophysicist who studies the sun, while those scientists who study climate are quite solidly in agreement that this isn’t the case? Hammer, everything a nail, etc.
Comment 5/25/2007
Also, if you think that a one Celcius degree change isn’t major, then you you haven’t been listening. Complex dynamical systems can undergo phase changes with small perturbations, even as small as those due to orbital wiggles. Now, the reason for such a hazard is… mutual positive feedback between CO2 and temperature.
Comment 5/25/2007
Tman:
I’m not sure we can go much farther here. You can believe whatever you want (and it’s clear that you will), but at the end of the day, the facts simply aren’t on your side. You have to hunt and cherry-pick to find points of view that support your argument, and you have to ignore volumes of contradictory evidence. At the end of the day, the CO2-versus-solar-radiation question is simply a math problem. For CO2, the numbers add up, and for solar radiation, they don’t.
Is it possible that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are missing something, and are somehow wrong about the extent of the human-made-CO2-to-warming connection? That possibility always exists, I suppose. But pretty much everything we know today points to them being right about that, and nobody has offered up a viable alternative explanation. (Alternate explanations have been offered, but as shown here and elsewhere time and again, they simply don’t even come close to adding up.)
So the question becomes, at what point do you decide to err on the side of caution, decide that there’s a very real chance that what appears to be true actually might be true, and do something about it?
The nice thing about global warming is that you don’t even have to believe the science of global warming to get behind the solutions — there are very real benefits to making virtually all of the changes that would be needed, even without the specter of climate change. The only downsides are a high initial cost and some modest loss of convenience. But if the end result is true energy independence, and no longer having to play pussyfoot in the middle east (for example), then that’s already worth the bother.
Comment 5/27/2007
tgirsch,
You have to hunt and cherry-pick to find points of view that support your argument,
Actually, as Kevin said, it only took a “five minute search on google”. And there was no cherry picking. I showed you indisputable evidence that CO2 change occured after global warming did. Every graph you presented actually supports this argument.
At the end of the day, the CO2-versus-solar-radiation question is simply a math problem. For CO2, the numbers add up, and for solar radiation, they don’t.
Global warming (and cooling) has been shown to correspond with changes in solar activity. Again, the math supports this. How much of a factor in the warming is open to debate, but not whether or not it does.
Alternate explanations have been offered, but as shown here and elsewhere time and again, they simply don’t even come close to adding up.
I don’t understand why you ignore all of the evidence to support my argument. Even Phil Plait supported the argument that the sun is definitely a factor in glonal warming, and no one knows for sure how much. But it certainly “adds up”. If anything, the math for co2 is the one that doesn’t really add up. You still can’t answer why the warming preceeds the increase in co2.
The nice thing about global warming is that you don’t even have to believe the science of global warming to get behind the solutions
I said before, it’s always a good idea to reduce pollution.
The only downsides are a high initial cost and some modest loss of convenience.
Modest? Destablizing the corn industry for ethanol production has caused significant disruptions in food distribution for poor people in Mexico. You sure this is going to be modest?
But if the end result is true energy independence, and no longer having to play pussyfoot in the middle east (for example), then that’s already worth the bother.
9/11 had nothing to do with global warming. And whether we all drive electric cars tommorrow or not, there will still be psychopathic jihadists wanting to kill the Americans who won’t convert. Just because WE won’t buy the oil doesn’t mean that a.) Someone else will and b.) the infidel-killers will leave us alone.
Comment 5/29/2007
You still can’t answer why the warming preceeds the increase in co2.
So, given what’s already been said, ‘answer’ here must mean “explain to me how math works”.
Comment 5/29/2007
For your consideration:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/06/01/the_law_of_unintended_consequences_part_47/
Comment 6/1/2007